Template talk:WikiProject Mammals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mammals (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.



{{editprotected}} There's no reason to have the dash then page break at the top when parameters are not used, disrupts the flow of many talk pages. -Pumpmeup 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, I think. --- RockMFR 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Points to Wiki Religion?[edit]


{{editprotected}} Hi please correct the wikilink within template, it's pointing to WP Religion rather than Mammals (I'm sure some of them are religious but probably not all). Benjiboi 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

YesY Fixed - with no prejudice to PETA ;) SkierRMH (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Guess you can tell which template this one was copied from, huh? John Carter (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol! I'm sure some animals find religion. Benjiboi 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the protection for ever? Template is lacking documentation[edit]

I would like to add documentation to this template. It has more features than those described. But I can't because the template is protected since... November! Please do something: Add a proper documentation or unprotected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Describe what you mean by "proper documentation" and it can probably be added. But because this template is a high-risk template, yeah, it probably will be protected more or less forever, so that someone doesn't come along and vandalize it by changing the categories linked to or whatever. That's fairly standard for templates that deal with multiple groups. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In section "Usage" all the following options are not mentioned and of course there is not explanation when they should be used:
  • attention
  • peer-preview
  • old-peer-preview
  • Mustelids-work-group
  • MustelidsImp
  • Primates-work-group
  • PrimatesImp
  • Pocket-pet
  • PocketpetsImp
  • needs-taxobox
  • needs-photo

Today I added many tags "guessing" that the need to be tagged as "pocket-pet" well. In order to help users to add appropriate tags, these options should be mentioned and explained in the documentation. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and those sections are added now. The template still needs a bit of work in some sections though, and I'll try to get to that tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Need "importance scale"[edit]

{{editprotected}} This template is missing the "Importance Scale"; when you add the "importance" parameter, it does not show up on the template. Please copy code from {{PrimateTalk}} unless there is a better source. I apologize for not listing the code here, but I am not too sure about intricate templates. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a day or two to get it up. Are we talking about separate importance parameters for each group which uses the template as well? John Carter (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't considered the task forces. If it is no bother, then yes; otherwise, it would be OK to skip them for now until they are requested specifically. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems this is being handled. Happymelon 10:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. A proposed revision is at User:John Carter/Mammals, shown in use on the talk page. It also provides assessments for the Montremes and Marsupials and Squirrels projects. Does it look OK to you?
It looks (and works) just fine for what I was requesting. The task-force additions look good, too. Thanks! --Tombstone (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Can someone more expert with templates than me please change this so that it recognises C-class (as the project apparently does)? Frickeg (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Just make some tests it works correctly and tell me. Should C-class be in a different color than B-class? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Making this template more extensible[edit]

Would anybody adversely object to me adding a "child" parameter which allowed other projects, that fall under this one, to utilize it's functions, as opposed to creating a whole new template? This would also have the added benefit of keeping articles within the project's scope from disappearing to other project's assessment categories. For example, Dog does not count as a B-Class Mammal article, and would never be counted as a featured Mammal article. I have a few guidelines for how to do this so that it would be as uninvasive and unredundant as possible:

  • (edited)The optional child parameter would take the subject in its WikiProject X form, (i.e. |child=X )
  • (added) optional |purpose parameter to allow for more variation in potential projects
  • (added) optional |catname parameter for assessment categories, defaulting to X
  • The rating would apply for both the appropriate Mammal and child project categories, but priority/importance is project specific and so could be set seperately from, or ignored by, the Mammals project.
  • The portal and image would default to those used already, but could be replaced.

--ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - I think this would be a good idea. Would you be the one to perform the task of changing the template? BTW - I could not find WP:Sheep. So, I really don't have much of a reference to compare to. BlindEagletalk~contribs 17:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • yes, i would go ahead and make the changes. and actually, i think i figured out a better way to handle naming and such... as noted above. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the code worked up to show as an example? If so, please post an example here so we can see it in action. --Tombstone (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

now that i'm diving into the details, i have a question. Should i keep with my original proposal and have all ratings (even List- NA- Category- and Stub- ) be duplicated by the child? Or should the sharing be specific only to FA- A- GA- class articles? Or should I only add enough extensibility to allow different project names and images to be used (and the template would completely replace all categories) --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to importance, the child should not inherit the value from the parent. I see the parent as being a wholistic view of the subject as mammals for example and how a specific article would relate to one versus the child project could be completely different. The class value could be inherited as the test for FA, GA, A, B, etc. should be fairly consistent. BlindEagletalk~contribs 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
i agree that importance is not universal, while class would be. however, the question is whether or not to be placing an article in both Category:FA-class mammal articles and Category:FA-class foobar articles - because the implications would be to be placing articles in duplicate stub-, start-, list-, and NA- class articles. With how the categorization stucture exists, Category:FA-Class Dogs articles should belong in Category:FA-Class mammal articles, but it doesn't. I am starting to think that while some optimizations could still be implemented, it might be more worthwhile to just fix the overall categorization rather than having one article belong to several different related FA-class categories. I realize this is a 180-degree move from my original proposal. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I understand your original question now. In my opinion, if the article relates to both categories then the article should be placed in both categories. I know the implication is that some article could be placed in a large number of categories. However, I think for broadest exposure to the material, it is appropriate to place them where ever they fit. In regards to fixing the category structures, it certainly needs some work and is probably as far away from the original subject you can get. It would be a daunting task that could certainly benefit a lot of articles. BlindEagletalk~contribs 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, take it for a test at User:Zappernapper/Template --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 08:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of placing articles into multiple categories is, so far as I know, to make them appear on the assessment summary table for the relevant projects. Thus, if we wanted Dog articles to appear in the Mammals assessment summary table, so far as I know, the article would have to be assessed separately for each table it were to be included in. If there have been developed other ways of achieving that objective, I don't think anyone would mind not including the duplicate assessments, but if there haven't, I guess it would be up to the various projects whether they want to have the assessment data and thus whether they want them assessed or not. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As a separate thing, what does everyone think about using the {{WPBannerMeta}} template to base the banner template on? There's a version in the sandbox which does everything the current template does. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No opposition here. BlindEagletalk~contribs 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)